INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber

- ._

Review commenced at: 12:45 PM (Time), 11/16/00 (Date)

File #: 95-265396

Laboratory #(s): 30205046

60122029 Examiner(s) & Symbols Reviewed Not Reviewed Reviewed Not Reviewed RQ xc 0 0 Oo WM, TT q xO o oO OG CG DO CO Matenals Reviewed Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Michael P Malone Testimony Date(s): unknown Pages: i9 un-numbered pages Laboratory Report(s):

Laboratory Number: 50205046 Date: May 10, 1985

Laboratory Number: 60122029 Date: May 30, 1986

Laboratory Number: Date:

Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ/technician

Laboratory Number: 50205046 60122029

Page 1 of 4

Initials: Sub

CRM - 10713

Was any other material reviewed? -XO7T "Yes ~" O No -

—lf-yes, please identify and/or describe the material:. . Submitting agency letters dated 1/23/85 and 1/2 1/86 and Malone's dictation for 50205046 :

Results of Review

File #; 95-265396 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q16-Q22, K10-K13

Review of Laboratory Report(s} and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in 2 scientifically acceptable manner, based on the methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? O Yes ONo OX Unable to Detennine

2) Are the examination results sect forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in the bench notes? OY¥Yes OXNo Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on

additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

DO Transcnpt not available.

3} Testimony consistent with the laboratory repori(s)? ox Yes GONo O Unable to Determine 4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? OYes OXNo O Unable to Determine 5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? OYes OXNo dO Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 4

Initials: Sot fi

Comments (Set forth by above question #, if applicable. . Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File#: 95-265396

#1. It cannot be determined from the documentation that the tests were performed in a scientifically acceptable

hater,

#2. The results are documented in the notes, but the notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil. This is not

adequate documentation.

The technician does not document the recovery of any hair from the Q items.

Abbreviations are used that are difficult to interpret (such as “M-lIt dist, It indist” and “cut-ssp”} to describe some

of the characteristics of the hair.

The laboratory report does not include the result that a pubic hair was recovered from Q18-victim’s jeans that

does not match the victim or the suspect hair.

#4, The testimony is consistent with the notes except that the pubic hair recovered from QI8-victim's jeans is

Review completed at: 2:15 PM (Fime), 11/16/2000 (Date} . Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour}: 1.50 hour

[ hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 4 pages.

{ (Signature) : (Date)

Page 3 of 3

Initials: ee

rr ne

Additional Comments —-~ = (Set forth by question #, if applicable)

—|- ——File.#:-_95-265396_ -; -__.

#4 (continued): ee a

not revealed during testimony.

—_z =

—

a oe ie ese ne oe

5. RQ misrepresents his expenence of having examined hair from 10, 000+ people and only twice was unable to distinguish the hair to the equivalent of the Gaudette study done at the RCMP. The Gaudette study attempted to

---—calculate-the-frequency of a chance match.of-a.common, featureless head hair.and arrived at a one in 4500 ab

chance. RQ’s experience and Gaudette’s study are not comparable. This is misleading testimony. See US v. BIC

| | 594 F, 2d 676.

Page 4 of 4